In contrast with the first trial, there was a virtual media blackout of the second Zündel trial in 1988 by Canadian newspapers and TV. Toronto columnist Lorrie Goldstein suggested that coverage of the trial be put on "Page 92 under the deodorant ads." (Toronto Sun, Feb. 11, 1987). Widely published articles examining the "dilemma" of whether to cover the trial at all were published. Commentators suggested that "in the public interest" the best solution was to "decide in advance to severely limit the coverage." (Globe & Mail, Aug. 26, 1987)

The Calgary Herald reported that: "Leading members of the Jewish community have visited major Toronto news outlets to implore them to cover the retrial differently." (Calgary Herald, Jan. 8, 1988)

In fact, coverage of the trial was almost non-existent. Only the Toronto Star published daily accounts of the trial, the articles always appearing on page two of the newspaper. It took the approval of the senior editor to move coverage to a more prominent part of the newspaper.

In an article published after the trial by George Bain in Maclean's Magazine (May 23, 1988) entitled "The public's right to know", Bain commented on the near failure of Canada's media to report a trial which the first time around had been considered to be major news. Bain questioned media managers about why they had decided to barely cover the event:

"What is curious, nevertheless, is the quickness and near-unanimity with which media managers insist that no representations to them, no feeling of pressure, affected their editorial decisions on how to play - or play down - the second Zündel trial. Curiously, only Ian Urquhart of the Star, the newspaper that (though 'judiciously', as he puts it) covered the second trial throughout, acknowledged that he received representations from the Jewish community about the publicizing of Zündel's hateful views."

At the end of the second "false news" trial, Zündel was again convicted by a jury on May 11, 1988 and was sentenced this time to 9 months imprisonment. He was again placed under the judicial gag order forbidding him to voice any views or facts supporting the booklet "Did Six Million Really Die?". An application by Zündel a month later to have the gag order removed as a violations of his constitutional rights was unsuccessful.

The Canadian Jewish News reported that "moments after" Zündel was sentenced, spokesmen for Jewish organizations, including B'nai Brith, again "issued a call for his deportation." (Canadian Jewish News, May 19, 1988; June 2, 1988)

Zündel appealed his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the West German consul general, Dr. Henning von Hassell, wrote letters to the Ontario Court of Appeal, alleging that Zündel had broken his bail orders by distributing pamphlets "having the denial of the Holocaust as their topic" to crew members of a West German ship while it lay in Toronto Harbour. In fact, Zündel had never distributed the flyers. von Hassell refused to apologize. (Sunday Star, July 2, 1989)

The appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed on February 5, 1990.

Zündel obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on November 15, 1990 on the issue of whether or not the "false news" law was a violation of the constitutional guarantee to freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both B'nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress obtained standing as interveners in the case to argue that the "false news' law did not violate free speech against Zündel's position that the law was a violation of the individual's right to freedom of expression.

On August 27, 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Zündel and struck down the "false news" law as a violation of the guarantee to free speech contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopting Zündel's viewpoint on freedom of speech. The court's decision, as summarized in the headnote to the case, was as follows:

Section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right of a minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be. All communications which convey or attempt to convey meaning are protected by s. 2(b), unless the physical form by which the communication is made (for example, a violent act) excludes protection. The content of the communication is irrelevant. The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment. That purpose extents to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or false. Section 181, which may subject a person to criminal conviction and potential imprisonment because of words he published, has undeniably the effect of restricting freedom of expression and, therefore, imposes a limit on s. 2(b).

In spite of the hostility and hatred which the media had shown to Zündel over the years, they grudgingly admitted in editorial after editorial across Canada that the decision was the right one and that the "false news" law had threatened the right to freedom of speech of all Canadians. La Presse in Montreal applauded the decision, the Montreal Gazette said "good riddance" to the law. The heading of the editorial in the Globe & Mail was "The right ruling on false news". (Globe & Mail, August 28, 1992)The Toronto Sun, an extremely anti-Zündel newspaper whose editor refuses to use Zündel's name in columns and editorials, nevertheless agreed with the verdict in an editorial headlined "Free to speak" and stated that "the cause of freedom of expression is too important to be sacrificed on any altar of anger" at Zündel. (Toronto Sun, Aug. 28, 1992) The Toronto Star editorialized that "this mature verdict upholds free expression..." (Toronto Star, August 28, 1992) The Calgary Herald editorial agreed that "to protect freedom of speech for all citizens, society must tolerate even the most obnoxious opinions of a minority." (Calgary Herald, Aug. 28, 1992)

RESPONSE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY TO ZÜNDEL'S ACQUITTAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

The organized Jewish community of Toronto refused to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court of Canada and the right of Zündel to peacefully express his opinions on World War II history concerning German treatment of the Jews. They fumed about the verdict in the media, berated the judicial system and ignored the spirit of the court's decision.

Sabina Citron was "stunned, shocked." She added, however, "I'm just beginning to fight." (Globe & Mail, Aug. 29, 1992)

Alan Shefman, who had worked for B'nai Brith during the first Zündel trial, expressed confidence that Zündel would soon be charged under the hate law. "Without fail he will be back on the street publishing his stuff. We will have enough material that there will be no problem charging him." (Globe & Mail, Aug. 29, 1992)

On August 31, 1992, four days after Zündel's acquittal, a delegation of several high officers of the Canadian Jewish Congress formally laid a complaint with Toronto police alleging that Zündel had "incited hatred" in media interviews given after his acquittal. The CJC provided the police with video tapes and transcripts of the interviews and a 71 page brief containing the booklet "Did Six Million Really Die?". The brief also contained an essay by CJC executive Manuel Prutschi, explaining why Zündel's views constituted "hatred." The essay called revisionists "evil magicians" and revisionism an anti-Semitic "bacteria ever mutating and developing." (After a six month investigation, police informed the CJC that after examining the material and receiving legal advice, they would not be laying charges as the material did not constitute "inciting hatred." This is dealt with in more detail below.)

Within two weeks, the formation of a coalition to press for new charges against Zündel under the hate law was announced at a press conference at B'nai Brith's offices. This coalition included the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, B'nai Brith's League for Human Rights, the Canadian Jamaican Association and the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations. (Globe & Mail, Sept. 11, 1992; Canadian Jewish News, September 17, 1992)

The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith immediately began an advertising and poster campaign to have Zündel charged with inciting hatred. The ads read: "Help Stop Zündel. Ernst Zündel is a Hatemonger... When the Supreme Court struck down the 'false news' law, the League, which fought him in court, immediately called for hate propaganda charges against him." The ads urged readers to call Ontario Attorney General Howard Hampton to demand that Zündel be charged under the hate propaganda law. (Canadian Jewish News, Sept. 10, 1992)

The September 1992 issue of B'nai Brith's monthly, The Covenant, featured a full page photograph of Zündel on the cover with the words: "Arrest this man, says B'nai Brith: Coalition campaigns for new charges against Zündel." The accompanying article reported that "thousands of 'stop Zündel' posters produced by the League of Human Rights hit the streets earlier this month. They were designed to pressure Ontario Attorney General Howard Hampton into laying Criminal Code charges against Canada's most well known Holocaust denier.

The Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association ran ads stating "ZÜNDEL MUST NOT ESCAPE JUSTICE! EMERGENCY RALLY" The meeting, held on October 4, 1992, heard calls to "declare war" on the legal system by one audience member. Sabina Citron urged everyone to:

"...continually harass the lives of the politicians. Zündel must be charged and deported. We are fed up and will not take it anymore." (Canadian Jewish News, Oct. 15, 1992)

During this time period, Jewish Holocaust revisionist David Cole from the United States wrote a letter to Attorney General Howard Hampton in support of Zündel. The letter was published in full in Canada's only national German ethnic newspaper, the Kanada Kurier:

"Dear Mr. Hampton,

I am writing concerning the case of Ernst Zündel, and your forthcoming decision as to the filing of new charges against him. I am Jewish, and also a Holocaust Revisionist. I am not some nutcase crawling out of the woodwork to spread hatred and anti-Semitism, but quite the opposite. I have been rationally explaining to people for years that there are two sides to the 'Holocaust' story, and that based on the evidence at hand, the revisionist side is simply more believable. Revisionism is not about hatred and malice, but objectivity and the attempt to discern truth from falsehood. If I was trying to hurt Jews, it would mean trying to hurt everyone in my family. That would be a serious charge to level at me.

I have been profiled on a network television show in the United States (the prime time news show '48 Hours' hosted by Dan Rather) and have also debated the issue with survivors and 'experts' on a national talk show (The syndicated 'Montel Williams Show'). I have never been accused of being a racist, Nazi or Jew hater (all of which I'm not).

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to stop the legal persecution of Mr. Zündel. I realize that there are pressure groups trying to convince you to do otherwise, and I likewise realize that it must be difficult for these people to separate their emotions from what is best for intellectual freedom in Canada. It should therefore be your job, as a representative of both the people AND the law, to look at things objectively and do what's best for both the people AND the majesty of the law. How has the continued persecution of Mr. Zündel benefited the people of Canada, except as an example of how to waste tax money? And how has the gross double standard concerning the rights of Germans as compared to the rights of other ethnic groups benefited the integrity of the law?

Please remember that the issue of the 'Holocaust" doesn't just concern Jews; Germans were there, too, and have as much right to study it as part of their history as do Jews. Years from now, perhaps many years, perhaps only a few, when cooler heads have prevailed and the Holocaust can be openly looked at objectively, and we see that the world as we know it has not ended as a result, the hypocritical and mean-spirited hounding of Ernst Zündel will seem pretty useless in retrospect, and history will not look favorably on those who were a part of it.

Sincerely, (signed) David Cole"

Amid this hysteria whipped up by Jewish groups, Zündel had a letter published in the London Free Press on January 28, 1993 explaining his position and hopes for the future. After reviewing the evidence he relied upon for his opinions, including the Leuchter Report and the Lüftl Report, he wrote:

"Yet I was tried twice for questioning the Holocaust. Readers can decide for themselves if we have reached an Orwellian state in Canada where an individual is crazy or a criminal just because he does not believe what many others believe uncritically. My hope now is that this issue can finally be discussed rationally without threat of criminal proceedings, violence or intimidation."

In response, furious members of London's Jewish community wrote the newspaper condemning it for printing Zündel's plea and refusing all dialogue with him. Letters contained comments such as "Regarding the title of that letter, I must state unequivocally that there is no possible rational discussion to be had with a Holocaust denier." (London Free Press, Feb. 18, 1993)

To his supporters, Zündel wrote in his newsletter (Feb. 17, 1993):

"After I won my court case before the Supreme Court of Canada on 27th August, 1992, I thought and hoped a period of quiet might begin for me. However, it was not to be. In the last six months the hysteria in Canada regarding anyone being 'right of centre' has been something to behold. Justice Sopinka of Canada's Supreme Court said in a speech given a year ago, that those who endeavoured to obtain equality for their own groups are now going over-board and beginning to deprive others of their freedoms and also to infringe or curtail their rights."

In the "Fifth Estate" segment aired on February 23, 1993 on Germany's Neo-Nazi movement, juxtaposing a severely edited interview with Zündel with video clips of burning German cities. Edward Lintner, deputy interior minister in charge of security, stated in the programme that German authorities were frustrated by Zündel who mailed pamphlets, books and videos from Canada. He continued:

"The Canadian government should do everything they can within their laws to stop the actions of Mr. Zündel, especially to prevent him from sending this propaganda from Canada." (Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 23, 1993)

After the showing of the grotesquely biased and severely edited "Fifth Estate" programme, the Canadian Jewish Congress renewed its calls to have Zündel charged with inciting hatred in a letter to Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd. (Canadian Jewish News, March 4, 1993)

In March, 1993, B'nai Brith criticised the Ontario government of Bob Rae for failing to charge Zündel with inciting hatred and called on the federal government to stop Zündel's mailing privileges. (Toronto Star, March 3, 1993)

Zündel commented on the "Fifth Estate" program in a newsletter (March 22, 1993) to his supporters:

"The well-known Canadian program, 'The Fifth Estate', contacted me and asked for my participation in a program the purpose of which was to show the alleged international connections of the 'Neo-Nazi Movement', or the 'Right.'

It did not take me long to figure out what they wanted to do, it was a smear job of me. The hope was to paint me as some kind of international 'Svengali' like character who basically was behind the 'Neo-Nazi Movement' in Germany and if possible, in Canada as well.

I knew that this program could be very dangerous to me, and at first I refused to participate because the man who was to interview me in Canada and while speaking in Europe would be an extreme leftist Jewish intellectual who had even come to the defense of Pol Pot. He was Jewish and I had crossed words with him before. I therefore refused to cooperate and asked them to return to me all videos I had already offered the show as background material. The guy's name was Julian Sher.

The CBC producer called me and said that another man called Malorek would take over. Howard Goldenthal was to be the researcher. Reluctantly, I agreed to be interviewed, but told them that I would film the entire interview with my own camera team as well.

I asked that they send me the questions in advance, so that I could prepare myself. Naturally, no questions were submitted. I decided, in light of my visa problems with the US, that I would not go to Europe with this team. Frankly, I feared a trap. I asked them to conduct the interview here at my house, when they [got] back from Europe.

In the meantime, I had heard the kinds of questions they were asking. I realized that I had been right.

The program was to be a typical CBC hatchet job. This was to serve as the basis of a new law suit against me and was meant to set the stage to remove my mail rights again.

The crew came and interviewed me. They filmed for almost five hours - from which they would select four minutes and ten seconds, quoting me out of context and juxtaposing my footage and interviews with WW II Nazi newsreels and footage of burning German towns and rioting people in Germany.

The program was aired twice. It immediately served for all kinds of calls to have me arrested, kicked out of the country, and to have my mail intercepted and stopped.

Some German government bureaucrats beseeched the Canadians to do everything in their power to stop the avalanche of propaganda I was supposed to be sending to Germany to influence its youth.

There was an uproar in Canada, caused by the media.

Back in Germany the prosecutor apparently said that I was digging my own grave by continuing with my information campaign. The prosecutor told the interviewer that a much higher fine, if not jail, was waiting for me in Germany when I go there to fight my upcoming appeal.

Well, that's the way it is!

The Deputy Minister of the Interior said that I was supposedly one of the six largest distributors of anti-Holocaust materials into Germany.

The head of the Constitutional Police said on camera that I am a clever fund-raiser and that I brought young and old together - that's why I'm dangerous! The British, leftist, anti-fascist newspaper 'Searchlight' said the same thing about me. I was dangerous because I was bringing the older generations and their money together with the younger 'activist' elements of the street-marches etc. My crime is also that I intellectualize the struggle with speakers like Irving, Faurisson, etc.

I fought and wrestled with the impertinent, cunning, cheeky and ideologically motivated questions of the interviewer. He got ever more hostile!

I stuck to my points, over and over again!

In the end, I was glad I made the program, for I learned a great deal about what my enemies are planning."

Continue . . .